HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Medicare for Allí would c...

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 01:32 AM

Medicare for Allí would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study

Ď
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/july/%E2%80%98medicare-for-all%E2%80%99-would-cover-everyone-save-billions-in-first-year-new-study

Upgrading the nationís Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.

Thatís the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.

Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.

ďNo other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care,Ē Friedman said.

66 replies, 5352 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 66 replies Author Time Post
Reply Medicare for Allí would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study (Original post)
eridani Aug 2013 OP
Blaukraut Aug 2013 #1
airplaneman Aug 2013 #55
truedelphi Aug 2013 #2
Enthusiast Aug 2013 #4
area51 Aug 2013 #8
Kennah Aug 2013 #48
duffyduff Aug 2013 #11
progressoid Aug 2013 #15
Egnever Aug 2013 #38
Kennah Aug 2013 #49
truedelphi Aug 2013 #50
pnwmom Aug 2013 #3
Sherman A1 Aug 2013 #5
Wilms Aug 2013 #6
Melissa G Aug 2013 #19
Scuba Aug 2013 #7
UTUSN Aug 2013 #9
BumRushDaShow Aug 2013 #12
UTUSN Aug 2013 #13
Egalitarian Thug Aug 2013 #10
Gidney N Cloyd Aug 2013 #14
yodermon Aug 2013 #16
eridani Aug 2013 #56
leftstreet Aug 2013 #17
Rex Aug 2013 #18
Bunnahabhain Aug 2013 #28
DirkGently Aug 2013 #20
spanone Aug 2013 #21
bvar22 Aug 2013 #22
BrotherIvan Aug 2013 #23
MrModerate Aug 2013 #24
Bunnahabhain Aug 2013 #25
LonePirate Aug 2013 #26
Bunnahabhain Aug 2013 #27
LonePirate Aug 2013 #29
Bunnahabhain Aug 2013 #31
LonePirate Aug 2013 #33
Bunnahabhain Aug 2013 #34
LonePirate Aug 2013 #36
Post removed Aug 2013 #37
LonePirate Aug 2013 #41
Bunnahabhain Aug 2013 #44
LonePirate Aug 2013 #47
think Aug 2013 #53
twitr_patter Aug 2013 #30
uppityperson Aug 2013 #43
creeksneakers2 Aug 2013 #45
truedelphi Aug 2013 #65
burnodo Aug 2013 #32
ProSense Aug 2013 #40
burnodo Aug 2013 #64
Corruption Inc Aug 2013 #35
GlashFordan Aug 2013 #39
ProSense Aug 2013 #42
LonePirate Aug 2013 #51
limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #46
Kennah Aug 2013 #52
Warpy Aug 2013 #54
eridani Aug 2013 #58
obxhead Aug 2013 #59
obxhead Aug 2013 #57
Uncle Joe Aug 2013 #60
RedCappedBandit Aug 2013 #61
Lugnut Aug 2013 #62
ConcernedCanuk Aug 2013 #63
suffragette Aug 2013 #66

Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 01:49 AM

1. The article mentions similar studies dating back to the early 90s. Same results.

Yet, nothing has been done to expand Medicare. On the contrary: It's always on the radar to get cut. As long as the Insurance lobby enjoys the revolving doors in DC, Medicare for All will remain out of reach, like so many progressive, common-sense ideas. Take money out of politics, then maybe we can actually see meaningful reform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blaukraut (Reply #1)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 12:47 AM

55. Yet, nothing has been done to expand Medicare?

I still hate Lieberman for having the swing vote on reducing the medicare age to 55 and voting no. Had he voted yes everyone 55 and older would have had medicare today. Being 59 and both me any my wife having medical problems I am more worried about being screwed by the medical industry and the republicans getting in office and cutting off everything. It bothers me to no end that this simply does not have to be. Health care in this country feels like rape them all into poverty for a profit. With a job and what I thought was good health care coverage my co-pays will be $15K this year alone. The thought of what it would be like without a job or insurance frightens the hell out of me.
-Airplane

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 03:02 AM

2. Back in 2004, a young and apparently quite inspired

African American ran for the US Senate seat for state of Illinois utilizing this concept for his campaign.

He even said "Single Payer Universal HC is the best and most logical way to solve the health care crisis."

Don't know what happened to the guy though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 03:56 AM

4. He disafuckingpeared.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 11:16 AM

8. Yes.

And my favorite part about his excuses on why we can't have single payer: because we didn't start out with it. Well, the Canadians didn't start out with the system they have now; they transitioned: so can we.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to area51 (Reply #8)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 12:25 AM

48. Not disagreeing with you, but it started in Saskatchewan and spread

Took decades before the Canada Health Act was passed in 1984.

In the UK, the NHS was the nuclear option enacted in 1948.

Vermont, Oregon, California, Wisconsin, or somewhere is going to eventually enact universal health care in state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 11:44 AM

11. It was a mirage.

 

That person was never there in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 12:29 PM

15. I'd vote for that guy.

Oh...I did.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 11:11 PM

38. He woke up to the reality that is congress.

 

Something you still havent done after years of being beaten over the head by it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #38)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 12:26 AM

49. We couldn't escape the numerology of 219-60-5

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #38)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 12:26 AM

50. That DLC Party line is so tired

That even steroids won't help it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 03:53 AM

3. Thanks. K & R. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 04:11 AM

5. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 07:54 AM

6. Medicare for Allí would cover everyone, cost insurance companies billions in first year: new study

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #6)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 06:41 PM

19. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 07:56 AM

7. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 11:35 AM

9. R#40 & K for, who's got the history about who was LBJ's healthcare guru for MediCARE?

Since the ACA has been criticized, here/too, for its origins, and since Hillary CLINTON did too, it appears that LBJ's success needs acknowledgement: Who managed it under LBJ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Reply #9)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 11:44 AM

12. SSA and then HCFA

Health Care Finance Administration (now called CMS, with the latest name change happening under Shrub).


Here is the last portion of history leading up to its enactment (from the SSA site).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #12)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 11:54 AM

13. Thnx!1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 11:39 AM

10. K&R Another stone to place on top the mountain we've built over decades. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 11:54 AM

14. It seems like it would be good for 2014 campaign optics, if nothing else.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 05:07 PM

16. Medicare part "E" - E for Everyone

(read that moniker on DU coupla years ago, can't take credit)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yodermon (Reply #16)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 12:58 AM

56. I think Thom Hartmann started that one

Excellent meme for sure

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 05:09 PM

17. DURec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 05:10 PM

18. Two of the biggest leech industries ever created

 

the health insurance industry and big pharma are NOT going to like this! The reason socialized medicine frightens them so much, is because MONEY counts far more to the CEOs of the leech industries than a human life. A human life is just a price number only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #18)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 10:33 PM

28. Medicare for all

 

does not = socialized medicine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 06:43 PM

20. But how will the insurance companies afford gold lobby statuary?


Please ... think of the insurance companies. And their statuary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 06:45 PM

21. wish we lived in a political / corporate world that would allow that to happen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 08:30 PM

22. And that is precisely WHY...

...no advocates for the Expansion of Medicare were allowed At-the-Table for the "discussions" about reforming Health Care in 2009.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 09:31 PM

23. I would get down on my knees and pray that this happens in my lifetime

It would be a game changer in so many ways for this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 09:42 PM

24. Yep, there's a reason that almost all other developed countries . . .

 

Use single-payer as their healthcare funding model.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 09:47 PM

25. Are we ready for the US government to negotiate drug prices?

 

Do we see any unintended consequences? If so are you ready to accept them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bunnahabhain (Reply #25)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 10:26 PM

26. Yes. Expanding and improving coverage for all Americans outweighs any bad negotiating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #26)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 10:30 PM

27. "Bad negotiating" is not an unintended consequence

 

But unintended consequences will have a definite long run impact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bunnahabhain (Reply #27)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 10:36 PM

29. That's assuming the bad negotiating happens. It may not.

Still the benefits of Medicare for All vastly outweigh increases in some drug prices, if that were to happen. The fear of the federal government negotiating bad drug prices is nowhere near a justifiable reason to scrap Medicare for All.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #29)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 10:40 PM

31. Was I unclear?

 

Bad negotiating has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Might I suggest you educate yourself on what an "unintended consequence" is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bunnahabhain (Reply #31)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 10:47 PM

33. Your unintended consequences stance is merely an argument against Medicare for All.

The worst case scenario of the government negotiating drug prices is nothing compared to the good that would come from Medicare for All.

Your original statement reads like a fear tactic from insurance companies or the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #33)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 10:49 PM

34. Why do you refuse to go find out what an unintended consequence is?

 

And is Robert Reich now spreading fear tactics from insurance companies or the GOP?

Why, when faced with concepts you fail to understand, do you say such silly things?

And I have not taken a "stance" about unintended consequence I merely asked if folks were ready for them. To ask an intelligent question is a bad thing for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bunnahabhain (Reply #34)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 11:01 PM

36. I fully understand the term. I am simply rejecting any worst case scenarios based on them.

You are framing unintended consequences as negatives against Medicare for All. Or perhaps you're playing Devil's Advocate with an attempt to state the obvious that some bad changes will accompany the good ones. Regardless of your motive, I simply do not believe that the sum of all negative unintended consequences will outweigh the benefits of Medicare for All. It's simple cost benefit analysis on a grand scale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #36)


Response to Post removed (Reply #37)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 11:31 PM

41. You asked if people wanted the government to negotiate drug prices. Let's follow that.

What happens if the government fails at negotiations? Prices will increase due to several possible factors, such as elevated contractual prices, reduced supplies, fewer generic alternatives (or maybe no generic alternatives), reduced competition and more monopolies in the pharmaceutical industry, etc. Then there are other negative unintended consequences such as job losses in the pharmaceutical industries and the much larger consequence of increased illnesses and deaths from those who cannot afford the increased drug prices. These are but a few. I welcome you to cite more as you have offered none yourself.

Despite all of these, none of them in total outweigh the benefit of Medicare for All. You seem to disagree with that assertion otherwise you wouldn't have broached the subject of unintended consequences. I don't fear them nearly as much as I recognize the massive good that will come from giving everyone in this country affordable (and hopefully quality) healthcare.

Then again, maybe, just maybe, the government succeeds at its negotiations and this fearmongering is for naught.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #41)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 11:56 PM

44. How can the government fail?

 

If the federal government controls the US market for pharmaceuticals how can it not negotiate lower prices? I mean, not even Dubya could fuck that up. Why would supplies reduce in your scenario of increased prices? Do you even know what a generic is? (Hint: that is a function of patent law.) You are just flailing away and not connecting with anything.

I am enjoying how you keep telling me what my position is.

And one last time...the negotiation process is not where the meat of this issue with drugs is. It's a given drug prices will go down if the federal government steps in to negotiate what their prices will be on a national basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bunnahabhain (Reply #44)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 12:25 AM

47. You're the one not connecting with anything. You tossed out a hypothetical and refused to support it

You have offered up nary a reason why you are concerned about or resistant to the government negotiating drug prices - and that was your initial (albeit implied) statement.

You harped on me about your ridiculous claim of unintended consequences which is what to lead to the discussion of what would happen if the government screwed up the negotiations, be it stupidly agreeing to higher prices or refusing to cover generic drugs or accepting whatever horrible clause (no compete clauses?) the pharmaceutical companies might add to the contracts. If someone like Max Baucus is doing the negotiating, then we have plenty to fear with possible bad deals for the public.

Further, your initial claim was ridiculous because you are now stating that lower prices will certainly result from the negotiations which pretty much negates your initial concern. Lower prices mean better health for Americans and more lives saved which is the ultimate goal.

Please feel free to step forward and explain your concern about the government negotiating prices because you have done nothing to support your stance, unless you're arguing the obvious. The absurdities I highlighted don't outweigh the benefits so give it your best shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bunnahabhain (Reply #25)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 12:45 AM

53. After listening to the side effects on the teletube I avoid

 

most big pharma products like the plague..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 10:40 PM

30. if only the report were correct...

Existing Medicare patients cannot easily find a doctor in many cities because Medicare doesn't pay enough to make it worthwhile for the doctor to treat them. Some of you I am sure think the solution to that is to force the doctors to treat them. Such coercion is illegal, but don't let that stop you. Consider instead the huge difference between what the government promised with Obamacare - rates will go down, you can keep your doctor, etc - and it turns out those things (and lots of others) aren't true. Also consider the excellent record of the Veterans Administration hospitals. It's true the VA isn't killing as many patients these days as they used to, but then it's been a long time since we've seen articles complimenting the VA on good care. Think about this. Drop a lot of new patients on a medical system which is already short doctors. Pay the doctors less to treat them. Do you seriously think that will result in wonderful medicine? How long are you prepared to wait for an appointment - which is the problem with medicine in Europe and Canada. People smart enough to be doctors are smart enough to do something that pays more than medicine in those places, and that's what will happen here. The proposed system is expected to "save" 592 billion dollars. From where is that money coming? Hospitals? Doctors? They're going to add 44 million new patients, chop over a half-trillion from current spending, and have money left over. Yep - that seems logical to me - especially given how wonderfully the Obamacare program is rolling out. Health care is a legitimate issue, and legitimate issues require legitimate solutions. Adding tens of millions of patients and cutting a half-trillion in spending isn't likely to be such a solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to twitr_patter (Reply #30)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 11:36 PM

43. Family in Europe, friends in Canada wait periods are less than mine in USA is with private ins.

"How long are you prepared to wait for an appointment - which is the problem with medicine in Europe and Canada. "

Yes, they have to wait for non-urgent things rather than going for the instant gratification people seem to demand here in the USA. But for regular appointments? They get in at least as fast as I do here in the USA with insurance. Having to wait a week for an urgent health problem like a bladder/kidney infection (happened recently, though I was told I could go to the ER and they'd pass the cost on to others) is wrong.

What "44 million new patients" do you mean are going to be added to the health care system? Do you mean those who don't have insurance, instead use emergency rooms without paying, those costs passed on to others?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to twitr_patter (Reply #30)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 12:04 AM

45. There are lots of stories out

there about rates going down with Obamacare. I understand the Republicans are highlighting instances where costs went up and the Democrats are highlighting instances where costs went down. It will take a while to know which is true.

Who lost their doctor? Mine is the same. I get insurance through my work and haven't seen any differences.

Has it been a long time since articles complimented the VA?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-hard-to-top-veterans-health-care-2010-06-02

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9100/index1.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK49104/#executivesummary.s6

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to twitr_patter (Reply #30)

Sun Aug 4, 2013, 04:32 PM

65. Welcome to DU. Totally agree! I was amazed when so many

Democrats here (and maybe it should be "Democrats"??) were applauding the cuts to MediCare. Those totalled 500 billions of dollars!
[h2][font color=red]

THAT IS HALF A TRILLION BUCKS!

[/h2]
[/font color=red]

I worked inside the health industry from 1989 to over a decade and a half later. Even way, way back in 1993, doctors were refusing to admit new MediCare patients, as the payments schedule was too low. So why should anyone applaud the idea of making doctor payments even lower?

How it is a good thing that Medicare took cuts, while the Biggest Banks and Financial institutions received over 15 trillions of dollars at the very same time that Obama wanted these cuts?

And experts state that some 4.7 trillions of these dollars of loans to Big finance will not be repaid.

Of course, it's no big deal, is it? The PTB plan on repaying the treasury by getting our Social Security out from under us!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 10:42 PM

32. Sorry, no. That's not the plan. Obama has the ACA

 

Sit down. Shut up. Be quiet. The ACA will make it possible for a medicare-for-all within 40 or 50 or 60 years. GOTV 2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to burnodo (Reply #32)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 11:20 PM

40. One doesn't

"Sorry, no. That's not the plan. Obama has the ACA
Sit down. Shut up. Be quiet. The ACA will make it possible for a medicare-for-all within 40 or 50 or 60 years. GOTV 2014."

...have to disparage the ACA to support single payer.

Single Payer movement in the era of Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023372091

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #40)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 07:13 AM

64. despite your self-linking

 

ACA is all kinds of disparageable considering the conductor didn't bother talking about the best plan in the first place

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 10:57 PM

35. Facts that concern every single person in the U.S. = REC'D!

 

Too bad we live in an era of corruption and will likely never see many of the things most Americans need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 11:20 PM

39. K + R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 11:32 PM

42. This is good information, and

Upgrading the nationís Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.

...it addresses the fact that Medicare needs to be upgraded to apply to everyone.

The biggest challenge is getting members of Congress to agree on the funding, which is a significant change to financing the health care system. See table 7 in the PDF: http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #42)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 12:29 AM

51. Yeah, the funding changes would be challenging as no R would agree to any of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 12:06 AM

46. It's time for this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 12:40 AM

52. OECD Health data is damning

http://www.oecd.org/health/

U.S. spends 17.7% of GDP on health whereas the OECD average is 9.3% of GDP

Second highest nation is the Netherlands at 11.9%

OECD nations, other than the U.S., cover everyone. We pay almost double the OECD average, we had 50 million uninsured before the Affordable Care Act, an estimated 26 million uninsured after, and we do NOT have the best outcomes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 12:45 AM

54. We might still get it but it will take many years

of the ACA sucking the obscene profit out of for profit health insurance for us to get it. Insurance companies and investors have to decide together that it's just not worth it any more.

They'll be happy to turn us over to Medicare in a decade or two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #54)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 01:02 AM

58. ACA also allows states to implement single payer in 2017

Why wait for the sociopathic political elite in red states to act? The best thing some of the saner states can do is to set a good example. This process worked in Canada.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #54)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 01:10 AM

59. BS

 

The ACA allows a far higher profit margin than the biggest ins co's have run on for decades.

In the end price fixing will become the rule to maximize profits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 12:59 AM

57. but but but

 

What would the poor insurance companies do? Won't you please think about the billionaires?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 01:10 AM

60. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, eridani.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 01:18 AM

61. If only TPTB listened to THIS Friedman...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 01:30 AM

62. K&R! K&R! K&R! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 02:48 AM

63. Us Canuks figured that out decades ago

 

.
.
.

Can't lose your home or savings here for stuff like heart attacks and cancer, and most procedures don't cost a dime - funded mostly by income tax contributions during our lifetimes.

Homeless and people on social assistance get the same benefits whether or not they ever contributed a dime.

And the poor get an added bonus, necessary prescribed medication is paid for.

But the Administration in the USA is loathe to admit someone like Canada has a better idea - the Admin will spend millions, er WASTE millions, Billions skirting around a system that works pretty good -

remember - ya got big pharma down there - they put a lot of $$ into your government's elected officials pockets . . .

don wanna screw that up now do we??

CC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Sun Aug 4, 2013, 05:18 PM

66. Eridani, thanks for never giving up on this

Solid K&R from me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread